No, I didn’t think so either. Which makes the case of the Yes2AV.org domain name a little curious.

Check the official records and you find that it is registered to Matthew Elliott, not the Australian cricketer but the man from the Taxpayers’ Alliance who is going to head up the “no” campaign for the AV referendum. Also listed is on the registration is Andy Whitehouse, complete with his Taxpayers’ Alliance email address.

If you are campaigning for a “no”, having a domain name with a “yes” just might cause some confusion, don’t you think?

Here’s what the No2AV campaign said to me about this:

The online campaign will obviously be an important aspect of this referendum, so Matthew naturally bought several website addresses, using his personal credit card, to reach different audiences. Matthew bought the domain names before he accepted the invitation to become Campaign Director and therefore used his colleague Andy as the technical contact. Sadly not all the No2AV sites were available, so we look forward to seeing what appears on the others as the campaign unfolds.

I don’t think the yes to AV campaign is going to be won online, so while it is a very much dirty tactic, it’s hardly going to be the end of the world. Especially considering the standard of web presences built by Tories in recent months. I predict it’ll be taken down after some security concern or unacceptable outburst within a couple of days… 😉

Actually I’m kind of wondering what on earth tax has to do with a yes or no vote over AV… and why the taxpayers alliance should care either way, it in now way fits with their own supposed ‘mission statement.’ My disgust at this little gang of contemporary Scrooges has just gone up a little more.

“Actually I’m kind of wondering what on earth tax has to do with a yes or no vote over AV… and why the taxpayers alliance should care either way”

Just a guess, and this might not apply, but from my experience there is a branch of libertarianism which basically despises the idea of political reform, arguing that it only entrenches elite rule and the legitimacy of the state. There’s also another branch that basically says that more pluralistic and responsive government will further the existence of the big state, which of course is anathema. Not particularly liberal attitudes to my mind.

Doesn’t this actually qualify as cybersitting? He’s bought the domain of another organisation after all. After several high profile cases, I thought W3C had decided that domain registration could not be first past the post first served after all.

Obviously there are thousands of suitable domain names for the Yes campaign to choose from so it is not dirty tricks. However if someone is going to spend money promoting no2av.org and creating brand recognition for it then the last thing you want is someone with an opposing view to “borrow” your marketing capital by switching No to Yes and getting the same recognition for a fraction of the spend.

This is simple marketing practicalities and he would look a toal amateur if he didn’t do that.

@ Andrew Tennant 11:30am – “How else would ‘No’ campaign expect to win, despite an inferior system, but through the use of fear, uncertainty and doubt?”

Maybe that is because not everyone shares ‘your’ perception of fairness regarding electoral systems, here I quote Lord Norton:

“The principal argument against the present system is that it is not fair – it is not a proportional system. However, proportional representation is a narrow concept. The ‘proportionality’ relates only to the relationship of votes to seats and not to the proportionality of power. Under PR, 10% of the votes are designed to produce 10% of the seats, but not necessarily 10% of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. Indeed, a party with 10% of the seats may be in a position to wield disproportionate negotiating power. ”

I personally like an electoral system that maintains a direct constituency link, and one that discourages coalitions, the latter for the following two reasons:
1. I believe it leads to more radical politics, as the government has both the mandate and the power to enact change
2. If the changes, voted for in manifesto, are seen to fail I want the ability to turf the party responsible for those ideas out.

So no, I do not consider a plurality system to be inherently inferior, in fact the British electoral system is a most fortunate example because it has a credible third party ready to occupy the position of an incumbent should they cease to be representative of the electorates needs.

@jedibeeftrix: I do agree with your criticisms- I’ve had rows with people on here about it- but full PR would help that. FPTP is a three-party system and it does lead to coalitions and those criticisms are applicable to FPTP and AV.

But PR would allow the likes of the Greens to build their support and we’d be more likely to end up with two blocks of parties- Tories/Lib Dems and Labour/Greens/Plaid/etc. Labour could be far more radical than if they were in coalition with the Lib Dems, and the current government would probably be as radical. And because we’d know who would be in coalition with who they wouldn’t be able to dodge responsibility for supposed “compromises” like the Lib Dems can in a three party system.

If coalition governments are to become the norm, it would be far better to have them as semi-permanent separate coalitions, not the Lib Dems hopping from one to the other as they please.

AV may not solve the problems, but if it makes PR more likely then it’s worth voting for.

I believe what you describe would not get around Lord Norton’s objection:

“The principal argument against the present system is that it is not fair – it is not a proportional system. However, proportional representation is a narrow concept. The ‘proportionality’ relates only to the relationship of votes to seats and not to the proportionality of power. Under PR, 10% of the votes are designed to produce 10% of the seats, but not necessarily 10% of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. Indeed, a party with 10% of the seats may be in a position to wield disproportionate negotiating power.”

The big parties would become even more beholden to the small to hold their coalition together in the face of the other coalition.

Mike, have you considered that there may be many more parties under an AV or PR system; that the parties as they presently exist may not stay the same way? FPTP encourages broad coalitions of opinion under a single party header as only large established parties, with large budgets and national profile are seen as having a realistic chance of winning; there’s an inertial bias against new parties or change.

Under AV or a PR system individuals can preference smaller parties without risk of wasting their vote or having foisted upon them a feared or undesirable outcome. Hence the opportunity is there for parties to split and increasingly distinguish themselves from their historical partners – to be more specific in their ideals, to represent an increasingly detailed niche. The right and left of the Lib Dems, the pro and anti European Tories, the Brownites and the Blairites, the greens, the peaceniks and the communists. Each and every one could be separate. The voter, presented with a genuine choice can therefore preference any one part, any direction or discord; to put their momentum behind a party direction or the direction for the country previously denied to them. Far from encouraging closer groupings and quashing of opinion, what we should see is open debate, more disagreement, and more power to the public who can have their honest and enthusiastic say.

@jedibeeftrex: Not as much as in a three party system. The Tories relied on the Lib Dems because before the election it was entirely plausible that the Lib Dems would have gone to Labour, and if Labour overtakes the Tories but doesn’t win a majority they’ll have to give far too much to the Lib Dems because there’d be nothing to stop the Lib Dems sticking with the Tories.

I’d much rather see a situation with two blocks that ally before the election. It would have the advantages of a two party system except people would be able to vote for the individual party in that block- so not only can they choose which block, they can also choose the relative strengths of each faction within that block.

@Andrew Tennant: I agree with that, I think my post I was writing when you made yours made pretty much the same point! I have shifted my stance a little based on the fact that I think the Lib Dems are unsalvagable as a party of the centre-left, and if a temporary truce over electoral reform is necessary to get to a point where Labour won’t have to rely on the Lib Dems then so be it.

Labour the Lib Dems should make a common cause over electoral reform in the interests of not having anything to do with each other afterwards. It’ll be an uphill struggle getting Labour traditionalists to agree to AV and then PR but it’s your only chance, the Tories won’t have none of it.

@ Mike 3:04pm – “Not as much as in a three party system. The Tories relied on the Lib Dems because before the election it was entirely plausible that the Lib Dems would have gone to Labour, and if Labour overtakes the Tories but doesn’t win a majority they’ll have to give far too much to the Lib Dems because there’d be nothing to stop the Lib Dems sticking with the Tories. ”

True, but that would be a infrequent event as FPTP ‘tends’ to produce majority governments.

“I’d much rather see a situation with two blocks that ally before the election.”

Fine if there was a manifesto for the electorate to vote on, but then i don’t see there being much difference between that which we have now…………

Sorry? That’s what should happen. The majority prefer the winning candidate to the initial leader liked by a small number but disliked by the majority. The majority get the better outcome for them, they don’t get ignored and have to suffer a minority’s choice foisted upon them.

Andrew: That’s one way of looking at it. Another view is that the person who got more positive first-choice votes than any other candidate (by a huge margin of almost 14 points) has been diddled out of a seat which should really have been his.

On this evidence, AV turns voting into a wholly negative process rather than a positive one. What matters is not the number of positive votes cast for the candidate who people want to win, but the number of negative lower-preference votes cast in order to keep another candidate out.

Jedibeeftrix: A striking thing about the Tasmania article is that there seem to be a lot of voters in Australia who *don’t understand how AV works*, despite the fact that they have used this system their entire lives.

A couple of months back I opined on this site that one of the disadvantages of AV is that some voters would struggle to understand it. Needless to say, everybody told me I was talking nonsense.

Stuart Mitchell
A striking thing about the Tasmania article is that there seem to be a lot of voters in Australia who *don’t understand how AV works*, despite the fact that they have used this system their entire lives.

And how many people understand how FPTP works?

If you were to ask the average person on the street here “Explain how FPTP can give the most seats to the party which does not have the most votes”, how many could? How many would even know it could? How many would even know that with FPTP getting a majority in Parliament does not require a majority of votes nationally? How many could explain why not?

I really struggle to see how the result in Denison, Tasmania can be regarded as bad or inappropriate by anyone. Wilkie is an Independent ex-Green and so looking at the broad picture, the “green” candidates have 40% first preferences. Even on first preference votes, it seems a fair reflection of the constituency’s attitude that he wins….

In fact, it shows up a major advantage of AV – candidates with a similar set of policies/values can stand without the fear that they will split the vote and let somebody in on a small minority. (If it was FPTP, you can imagine endless recriminations between Wilkie and the Greens about letting Labour in).

Is that Matthews home address in the whois ? Perhaps people ought to send him some information about what AV really is just to break the illusion he actually thinks he is doing the public a service. He must know he is trying to rip the population off already but at least this wound be confirmed.

The fact that, so far at least, the No campaign is being led by the Taxpayers’ Alliance (recently and temporarily resigned) and a few seemingly right wing old buffers from the House of Lords is good news – is much of the centre through left really going to feel happy campaigning in such company?

Matthew: I agree that most people will not understand or be aware of those aspects of FPTP. I remember when I was about 18 and first read about the infamous 1951 election result, the astonishment I felt at learning that such a thing were possible.

However, at least with FPTP just about everybody can understand how their local MPis elected. Not so with AV.

How many people do you think realise that under AV, a candidate could get twice as many first preference votes as anybody else – and yet still lose? More to the point, how many people do you think would feel instinctively that this is unfair?

In that situation Stuart, (which would be a rarity btw) the candidate may have had a strong core following, but the majority of voters in the constituency wanted ANYONE BUT this candidate. So since the majority of that constituency have a serious dislike for this candidate, are they really suitable to represent this constituency?
You mentioned that this is a negative vote. That’s correct. Being able to say “NO” is as important to a voice as being able to say “YES”. People still vote negatively under FPTP, but it’s at the expense of their positive vote. AV allows the voter to be both negative AND positive, so it will actually INCREASE the positivity in voting.

I also find AV quote simple to explain.
You just split it into rounds:
The first round counts the first preferences, the candidate with the lowest is eliminated.
Everyone now votes again, supporters of eliminated candidates now choosing their next preference.
This means that everyone gets a say about the remaining candidates.

AV isn’t my first choice of system either but I certainly wouldn’t choose FPTP over it in this referendum. It prevents split votes, and it also prevents a person from neglecting their favourite choice in aid of tactical voting. It’s quite common for people to ignore unestablished candidates, no matter how brilliant they might be, just because they see them as a no-hoper so a wasted vote. AV might not solve ALL of FPTP’s problems, but it solves some quite significant ones, and that’s enough for me to support it.

“Actually I’m kind of wondering what on earth tax has to do with a yes or no vote over AV… and why the taxpayers alliance should care either way”

Just a guess, and this might not apply, but from my experience there is a branch of libertarianism which basically despises the idea of political reform, arguing that it only entrenches elite rule and the legitimacy of the state. There’s also another branch that basically says that more pluralistic and responsive government will further the existence of the big state, which of course is anathema. Not particularly liberal attitudes to my mind.

Alternatively, he could just be a Tory.”

Actually I was referring to the statement that the Taxpayers alliance (may they rot in their scrooge like dwellings) will be heading up the No campaign… I mean… why?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic
and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here.
Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to
show this. You must be registered for our forum and can
then login on this public site
with the same username and password.